Return to Transcripts main page

Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees

Twenty-Two Days To Midterms: Trump Hits Trial Carrying Baggage For GOP; State Department Inspector General Investigating Guilfoyle Amid Misconduct Allegations; Interview With former Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ); Federal Agents Search D.C. Home Of Dem Rep. Ilhan Omar; DOJ Investigating 5 WH TV Pool Networks; Trump Facing Bipartisan Backlash Over U.S.-Russia Diesel Deal; Sources: U.S. Threatens To Suspend Intel Sharing, Weapons Purchases If Ukraine Continues Russia Energy Strikes; Judge Halts More Tree Removal At D.C. Public Golf Course. Aired 8-9p ET

Aired October 12, 2026 - 20:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Senator Collins and Troy Jackson are set to face off in two additional debates this week, and Maine is one of those states where Republicans are outspending Democrats on the airwaves. But there is one notable group that has not been here advertising on behalf of Collins, and that is President Donald Trump's Super PAC after he's expressed frustration with some of her past votes -- Kate.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN HOST: Arlette, thank you so much. And thank you all so much for joining us. "AC360" starts right now.

[20:00:35]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST: So, with the midterms just three weeks from tomorrow, the President rolls into Ohio carrying a ton of new political baggage on top of the kind that has been weighing Republicans down the entire campaign.

John Berman here in for Anderson, and the President is in Youngstown, the seat of a county he won by ten points just two years ago, and a state he won by nearly 12, and that new baggage, he arrived with his Ambassador to Greece and former future daughter-in-law, Kimberly Guilfoyle, reportedly under investigation by the State Department's top watchdog in the wake of allegations that, among other things, she solicited $100,000.00 from a MAGA donor to pay off her AmEx bill.

There is his deal to buy diesel fuel from Vladimir Putin's Russia, which is now taking withering fire from Democrats and Republicans alike.

And heaviest of all the baggage he's been dragging around for months, the war rising prices, his own job approval, which is at a record low for him, the kind of trouble that is making races in many of the red states he has been campaigning in lately, with more to come this week, surprisingly competitive.

So much though, some Republicans now worry he is doing more harm than good on the trail. Or, as one told us, though not by name, Trump is dragging the party down. The President, as you might imagine, believes otherwise and said so again tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: So, what happens is every time I run, we do great. We have a tremendous turnout, 48 to 49 percent more than when I don't run. So, I'm asking everybody to pretend, just pretend that I'm on the ballot because in a way, I am on the ballot.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: CNN polling suggests that if Ohioans do that kind of pretending, it might not help Republicans, 76 percent say his policies have increased the prices they pay, 58 percent say tariffs, which the President champions are bad for Ohio, and nearly half consider cost of living and the economy their top issue. And that same polling of some Ohio races reflects that discontent.

Incumbent Senator Jon Husted is now trailing Democrat Sherrod Brown by six points. Democrat Amy Acton is eight points up on Republican Vivek Ramaswamy in the race for governor. So, plenty to talk about tonight, starting with CNN chief White House correspondent and anchor of "The Source", Kaitlan Collins.

Kaitlan, good to see you tonight. So, does anyone around the President think his message might need some tweaking for the final three weeks?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN'S CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT AND THE ANCHOR OF "THE SOURCE": I mean, John, I think it's an open question. I think one thing the President himself certainly believes, and that he has been saying pretty much every time he's been leaving The White House, which is quite often lately, to go and hold these rallies, is that he believes that they are helping the Republican candidates and that they are going to get them across the finish line in three weeks, when the midterm elections are held.

I mean, you're seeing him right now in Ohio, where he is not only rallying for Jon Husted, the senator there, who you just mentioned is underwater in those polls, but also Vivek Ramaswamy, who is running for governor and is in a tight race with Amy Acton.

And so, the President is trying to help get those Republicans across the line. It's an open question of whether or not the rally is doing that, John. I've been listening to the President tonight. Obviously, these are his most fervent supporters. The people who come wait in line and attend these rallies. They wait in line for hours.

The President has been talking about Ilhan Omar, and there was a chant about Somalia and about deporting her. When the President was mentioning that raid on her house, that search warrant that was executed by federal officials today. He also was talking about Jon Husted's physical appearance as something he's done in Texas as well, with Ken Paxton.

And he also was talking about gas prices, John. And he was blaming the Biden administration for gas prices and also arguing that gas prices right now that are as high as they are, more than double what they were when the war started in Iran earlier this year, that they will come down soon. Though he did not specify when, which is obviously a huge question for the people who are in the audience tonight, the people who are not at that rally tonight, especially with this high as diesel prices in Ohio are right now.

And that's why it's interesting, John, to see what the President has been doing behind-the-scenes in terms of announcing this deal to buy Russian oil, even though he just signed into law legislation that would sanction countries that do so. He is trying to get these gas prices down because he seems to realize just how much of a liability that could be in about three weeks from now.

BERMAN: The economy and cost of living, the most important issue to voters, according to our polling, and the President not doing well on those issues.

Kaitlan Collins, thank you very much. We're going to see you at the top of the next hour for "The Source".

With us now, Republican strategist, CNN political commentator, Brad Todd, and former senior adviser to President Biden, Ashley Etienne.

And Brad, as we mentioned, you know, some Republicans are now worried that the President is so unpopular that his presence on the campaign trail might do more harm than good in some cases. Where is the President a liability? Where is he an asset?

[20:05:30]

BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, one place he's an asset is in Eastern Ohio, where he is tonight in Youngstown. You know, this was Democrat country, the Ohio River Valley is where President Trump flipped counties from Obama, a longtime-Democratic strongholds where Obama had won by 10 or 15 points, to places where he won by 10 or 15 points.

And so, this is exactly the kind of place where our Republican voters like him more than they like the Republican Party brand. So, I think it's a very strategic stop for him. And, you know, in the end, all Jon Husted has to do is beat Sherrod Brown.

The first time Sherrod Brown ran for Senate, he got 74 percent in Mahoning County. The last time he ran, he got 46 percent. Jon Husted just has to make Sherrod Brown perform the way he performed two years ago and he wins.

BERMAN: Yes, speaking of Mahoning County, where Youngstown is, Sherrod Brown won it in 2018. He actually won it by about 20 in 2018. But by 2024, he lost it by a very little.

Ashley, along the lines of what Brad is saying, how do you think Sherrod Brown -- how his campaign feels about having Donald Trump in Youngstown tonight? Do you think they see it as a threat?

ASHLEY ETIENNE, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER TO PRESIDENT BIDEN: I don't think they see it as a threat. You know, Brad pointed out, the reality is the President is unpopular and is underwater in in the majority of the states across the country, 47 of the 50 he's underwater. And so, the reality is he does he does a lot more -- he does the benefit in the work for the Democratic Party wherever he shows up.

But I think Brad is also right. I think what folks are missing here is conventional wisdom says that the President is out on the campaign trail to boost his base. But I also believe what he's trying to do is boost low propensity Republican voters.

These MAGA Republican voters who believe that this guy walks on water that believes everything that he actually says, and that is a benefit to Republican candidates, because they can't turn out those voters.

So, he actually is creating a benefit for those Republican candidates in those states. And I think it's not an obvious thing on people that aren't studying and watching the sort of political headwinds and understand where Donald Trump's greatest -- where he is the greatest asset to the Republican Party.

BERMAN: Brad, in terms of fundraising, "The New York Times" was the first to report that Elon Musk has poured in $276 million into the midterms since July. Some people think he's actually a lot more than that since the beginning of July. What and where and how will that help?

TODD: Well, Elon Musk works with outside groups, right? He works with outside entities that are not directly campaigns. And so, you know, on one hand, they can't coordinate with campaigns. On the other hand, if they were to advertise, they pay a lot higher prices for campaign than campaigns do for television advertising.

So, he prefers to spend that money on the ground. He prefers to do digital advertising, where there's not a premium to be paid for outside groups. He prefers to do get out the vote exercises, both in person and things like texting. You know, he's a very digital oriented person, and his efforts outside tend to be the same.

BERMAN: Ashley, I want to go to Texas if we can. And by the way, CNN is airing a Town Hall with Democratic candidate James Talarico on Wednesday night. There is this debunked, easily debunked conspiracy theory being circulated online that Talarico was missing from the campaign trail because of a mental health episode. He dismissed all of that in an interview. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES TALARICO (D)TEXAS SENATE CANDIDATE: I had the flu. This is the craziest thing I've ever heard. It's wild that someone can just post something on the internet, and then the media just runs with it.

You know, I've heard credible reports that Ken Paxton has a serious medical condition that causes clinical levels of cowardice. It's why I haven't heard from him after 85 days, when I first challenged him to a debate, he has asked for proof of life from me. I'm asking for proof of spine from him. (END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: So, Ashley, you are from Texas. What do you see there in this exchange? And also, what seemed to have been this deliberate effort among some to float these conspiracy theories?

ETIENNE: Well, listen, I mean, you know, what I saw there is, is a fighter in Talarico, someone who's not backing down. The reality is Paxton is probably not just the most corrupt politician in in Texas history, but he happens to also be, to quote James Talarico, the one who's least spiny. You know, and that is, you know, and not just spiny, but he's unserious.

I mean, he launched a tip line to try to search for Talarico. It's like, really in the midst of Texan's suffering an electricity crisis, they have failing schools all over the state and this is how Ken Paxton spends his time. He can't find time to debate Talarico on the issues. He'd rather do this unserious stuff, this you know, performative stuff like launching a tip line based on a conspiracy.

I mean, it's really unserious and this is why the Republican Party is shaking in their boots about losing my home state of Texas, about the possibility of it floating is because they understand how weak Paxton is as a candidate.

Again, you know, you can't find time to debate Talarico on the issues that Texans are facing, but you rather spend your time playing these silly games, like launching a tip line. I mean, it is why the Republican Party is freaking out about losing that state.

[20:10:53]

BERMAN: Ashley Etienne and Brad Todd, great to see you both tonight, thank you.

Next, as if for alleged begging for someone to pay off for $100,000.00 AmEx bill were not enough trouble for America's ambassador to Greece.

Now, a source tells us there is also a State Department investigation, and the President is weighing in. What he said about firing her when we come back.

Also, the man who says he refused to pick up that credit card tab. Later, all we are learning about why federal agents searched the D.C. home of a Democratic congresswoman whom the President now calls crooked and once called garbage.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:15:34]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO GREECE: The best is yet to come.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: Not so tonight, it seems for the woman who said that, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Americas Ambassador to Greece and Donald Trump, Jr.'s former fiance. If it were, the President, would not have said what he said late today when asked whether he was thinking about firing her.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Well, we're looking at it, yes, we're not happy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: Rarely has this President said so little while saying so much. And on top of that non ringing non-endorsement, a source familiar with the matter tells us that the State Department Inspector General's Office is now investigating her, all in the wake of the allegations last week from MAGA donor, Eric Deters, who says she texted him shortly before her confirmation hearing pleading for him to pay off her $100,000.00 AmEx bill while also complaining again, allegedly that he wasn't doing enough to keep their conversations on the subject, hush-hush.

Now, "The Wall Street Journal", which broke that story, reports that she was more recently caught on tape boasting that Greek tycoons paid for her luxury travel and begging to be invited to an event with Eric Trump. According to "The Journal," she was furious at one of the organizers, saying, "You don't have the effing U.S. Ambassador to Greece, not come. She should be kissing my effing ass."

Lawyers for the ambassador have denied the allegations about seeking money, and said reports about her travel were misleading, adding that she complied with federal gift and reporting requirements.

Joining us now is the aforementioned Eric Deters. Eric, we mentioned the State Department's watchdog is reportedly investigating Miss Guilfoyle. Have you been contacted by that office?

ERIC DETERS, RETIRED LAWYER AND FORMER TRUMP DONOR: I have not been contacted by that office yet. The only two people that have contacted me is Raskin and Garcia.

BERMAN: So, Democrats on the House Oversight and House Judiciary Committee, the two Democrats who might share those committees after the November elections.

What have they said to you? Would they seek your testimony if Democrats win?

DETERS: I'm going to have a conversation with them on Wednesday. And I'm assuming, based upon the letter that Garcia wrote, that I would probably be testifying at a Congressional Committee, and I'm confident that the Inspector General and the Secretary of State's Office, I'm sure, will be contacting me, too.

BERMAN: You heard the President say he is not happy with Guilfoyle. What are the chances that you think that he would fire her? DETERS: I think she's gone. I think he has to fire her. And I think the reason why he has to fire. I think she could have survived all the stuff over in Greece because it's over in Greece.

I think what I've presented, she can't escape from, it's black and white, it's her own words. And I think she's toast as a result of it. It's grifting on the highest level and it's just an awful look for the administration.

BERMAN: So, you say it's black and white. Guilfoyle attorneys are pushing back on the narrative you've described as a definite quid pro quo by alleging she was attempting to collect approximately $150,000.00 in outstanding fees from previous speeches and consulting work she did on your behalf.

In a statement, they wrote that Miss Guilfoyle was preparing to leave private life for public service. She did what any professional does and tried to close out her outstanding receivables, asking a client to pay for work already done is not corruption, it's the opposite of corruption, the lawyer said. To that you say what?

DETERS: Well, I'm going to be suing those lawyers that law firm and Kimberly Guilfoyle. Here in Kentucky, it's going to be fun. They're going to have to come to Kentucky. I'll take their depositions for the following reasons. They first said that the text messages were fake defamation. Then they said I was a known blackmailer, never blackmailed anybody in my life, defamation. Then now, they're claiming that their invoices, when she knows that's not true.

In all the text messages, she doesn't mention anything about me owing money. What she talks about is papering this.

So, what she asked me to do was make up that I owed her money and write her a letter, and I did that for her. She knows that is phony, and I'm going to be suing him for defamation.

BERMAN: Her attorneys also said you missed payment deadlines and this is what they said, here is your own text messages, "... blame his business partner, blame his lawyer, describe him as a cash strapped millionaire."

To be clear, do you owe Ambassador Guilfoyle any money at this point?

[20:20:10]

DETERS: I do not owe any money from Ambassador Guilfoyle, and that's why I'm going to sue them for defamation. And you know what's so funny? If I was such a cash strapped millionaire, then how come I have never had to pay one single person, one nickel in any litigation type expense?

I'm just fine, but I can tell you who's not fine, Kimberly Guilfoyle. And by the way, I've communicated with the Trump administration today, and I told them and I let them know I'm going to be suing them for defamation, and the story is not going to go away.

BERMAN: Who'd you talk to in the Trump administration?

DETERS: I sent an e-mail to Don, Jr. and Susie Wiles, who I have plenty of other times in the past.

BERMAN: Eric Deters, appreciate your time on this. You're in the middle of a story that seems to be developing by the day. So, we appreciate your time tonight.

DETERS: Thanks for having me on.

BERMAN: All right, I want to get perspective now from former Republican Senator Jeff Flake, who also served as the Ambassador to Turkey during the Biden Administration.

So, he's been in a job very similar to the one Kimberly Guilfoyle is in. And I want to read some of the text messages Guilfoyle allegedly sent to Deters, the man we were just talking to.

She wrote, "You could just send it here, it won't show up anywhere. If you wire money to an American Express, that's all that will show, please. And I really wish you would stop papering all these things. it's really dangerous and not helpful to you or me while you could simply call me on Signal."

So, what do you think that looks like for someone who at the time wanted to be a U.S. Ambassador to Greece?

JEFF FLAKE, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO TURKEY: Well. it's not good. Anybody who's gone through the process of becoming ambassador knows that there are just myriad forms that you fill out. You have to declare your financial status and ensure that you've sold any stock or any interest that may conflict with your job there.

So, it's a difficult process to go through. I just am floored that he'd have those kinds of messages telling somebody to not leave a paper trail when she's leaving a paper trail. So, this is just not good.

BERMAN: Floored that she did it, floored that the Trump administration didn't know it, floored how?

FLAKE: Well, both. I mean, the Trump administration had to know that some of this was going on. And then, you know, the sad part of all this is that's an extremely important post. Greece is, you know, protecting NATO's southeastern flank. It's extremely pivotal part of the world. And, to not have a serious ambassador, there is just not a good look and this is just not good. I can't imagine that she'll survive much longer.

BERMAN: Her lawyers argue that it was just trying to collect outstanding consulting fees. Any way that sounds correct to you? And is that the type of activity that, again, someone who wants to be ambassador to an important country, as you said, should be engaging in before a confirmation?

FLAKE: Well, you just heard from the man who was supposed to have sent those invoices. So, yes, or she sent those invoices too, and he's claiming the opposite. So, I don't think that will go very far.

Like I said, this is not a distraction that the Trump administration is going to want to have for much longer. So, I can't imagine it goes much longer.

And if you're, you know, Marco Rubio, who's a very serious Secretary of State who gave an incredible great speech in Greece, but to have to be there and to sit next to the ambassador when these things are going on, that just got to be very difficult.

BERMAN: So, if an ambassador is strapped for cash, would that hypothetically make that person more likely to be a target of foreign intelligence efforts? Is that part of why due diligence is needed here?

FLAKE: That's exactly right. They want to know if you can be easily blackmailed. If there's anything in your past that will compromise you or cause you to be compromised and, so yes. Those things should have been -- should have been found. My guess is they weren't doing due diligence on this because for some reason they wanted her there. And, anyway, it's just, it's not a good look for the United States.

It doesn't do anything for our security there. And it's an important post and we ought to have a serious ambassador there.

BERMAN: Former Ambassador, former Senator Jeff Flake, who said he's floored by the developments that we are seeing in this case.

Senator, great to see you. Thank you very much.

Next, federal agents searched the D.C. Home of one of the President's longtime political targets, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, raising questions about what role, if any, politics played in the timing of it so close to election day.

And later, the Justice Department decides to treat news organizations, including this one and Fox standing up for the First Amendment as potential antitrust violators.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:29:21]

BERMAN: Federal agents from the Department of Homeland Security searched Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar's Washington, D.C. home early this morning in what Democratic House leaders are calling, "the continued corrupt weaponization of the federal government against Donald Trump's adversaries."

Meanwhile, the DOJ says it, "executed a judicially authorized search warrant." The DOJ added, "... that this was part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation," but gave no other details.

On social media, Congresswoman Omar called the search the latest escalation into the President's campaign of political intimidation. As you might recall, she was one of the first two Muslim women elected to Congress. She was born in Somalia and fled the country during its civil war as a teenager, later becoming a U.S. citizen. The congresswoman is also no stranger to attacks from the President, who called her garbage last year. And he had this to say about the investigation into Congresswoman Omar late this afternoon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I understand they're looking at it very carefully. I've always found it to be totally crooked personally, but that has nothing to do with me. I think she's a terrible person, just a complainer.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[20:30:25]

BERMAN: Let's go right to CNN's Evan Perez for the latest on this. Evan, what more are you learning about this search?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, John, we know that this is an investigation into immigration issues. And one of the things that we know Republicans for years have been claiming is that she obtained her citizenship, or that she helped, perhaps, her brother obtain citizenship through fraud. And so those are the things that, for years, Republicans have been accusing the Congresswoman over.

And so we know that that is -- those are the things that the investigation has been focused on for some time. Now, we don't know what else could be in play right now. We don't have any access to any court documents. No charges have been filed at this point.

But we should point out a few things about this Congresswoman. She is, as you pointed out, she's from Minnesota, which has, of course, been a focus of a lot of anger from the President, despite the fact that you heard him there saying that he had nothing to do with it.

He has made very clear that he believes she is guilty of crimes and that she needed to be investigated. So it's not a surprise that these investigators from HSI showed up this morning, before dawn, to her house here in Washington, in the Washington, D.C. area.

We also know, John, that at this point, we don't know whether -- well, sorry, we don't know whether this is going to lead to anything else, because we know that the FBI has looked at other parts of her life as well. And it appears that, for now, it at least, right now, is just an immigration-related investigation.

BERMAN: Well, one thing we do know is it's 22 days before the election. And we also know that, historically, the Justice Department treads very lightly in about a 60-day period before Election Day, when getting involved with any kind of political candidate. Did the timing factor into this decision at all? What do we know?

PEREZ: The Justice Department says that there is no relation to the timing to the election with this. Now, let me just be clear. In President Trump's first term, under Bill Barr, the attorney general, he changed the rules so that something like this has to get high-level approval from the Justice Department.

And we're told that that was followed. That is exactly what happened here. Top officials of the Justice Department approved this. And it has to be -- for this to happen within 60 days of an election, there has to be exigent circumstances.

You have to believe that, for instance, documents might be getting -- or other evidence might be getting destroyed, or that there is some other obstruction happening that you are trying to prevent. So that's, you know, again, one of the reasons why you would do this in such a public way.

Now, the Justice Department rules just say that you're not supposed to take any overt steps, right? And let me just say, I mean, you could see the pictures right there. Doing a search in public there is, of course, going to get public attention. And as you pointed out, 22 days before the election, it's highly, highly unusual.

Of course, you know, John, you and I almost, you know, every couple of weeks here stand before -- you know, talk about here, about the different norms of the Justice Department that are -- that have been kind of broken off. And certainly, this is one of those.

BERMAN: Yes. I mean, a public search is absolutely an overt action.

Evan Perez, thank you for this update. I know you'll keep on following this.

Joining us now, Former Assistant Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, Juliette Kayyem. Juliette, great to see you. The search warrant was executed by Homeland Security investigators, a specific group of people there. Why is that distinction significant to you?

JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Yes. So HSI is one of the least well-known federal law enforcement agencies. It is part of ICE. It is one of three operational components of ICE. Why does ICE have an investigatory agency is because a lot of immigration cases also involve really, really bad crimes -- exploitation of young girls, smuggling of young girls for sex purposes, drugs, counterfeit money, just really horrible things.

And so, ICE needed an investigatory body to look at those issues. We generally never viewed, even giving the Trump administration the benefit of the doubt here, even allegations of fraud, potential allegations of fraud in a -- in trying to get citizenship as sort of worthy of HSI. HSI was meant to be reserved for the kinds of horrible things that you think of when you think of trafficking of young girls and women and drugs.

[20:35:03]

BERMAN: So, if this was a traditional investigation for fraud, HSI would not be involved. You're suggesting multiple outlets are reporting that part of the investigation does involve immigration paperwork filed by Omar's father when she was a lot younger. Her father died back in 2020. What does that tell you?

KAYYEM: So this is what's interesting, and we don't know anything about this case. I mean, we know what the President has said. We know some hints that Homan and others, other senior immigration officials, have said. But these allegations have been out there, so I just want to make clear what the law says.

If I am the daughter of a man who took advantage -- fraud, fraudulent paperwork, whatever -- to become an immigrant, and through him, as his daughter, if I was, you know, brought here, I became a naturalized citizen. There is absolutely -- there's no precedent for denying me, many years later, even if the fraud occurred, citizenship.

This is wholly new theory of the case, which is that she will be punished -- and once again, I'm giving the Trump administration the benefit of the doubt here -- she would be punished somehow for the fraudulent behavior of her father. In fact, Section 212(k) of the Immigration and Naturalization Code has an explicit exception for these kinds of cases, saying, look, if the children -- you know, they don't know she's a teenager.

And so, even assuming that the Trump administration is correct in all these allegations that they've never been able to prove about her father or her family, this is still not a case where you raid someone's house at 4:00 in the morning, who is a public figure who's running for office in less than a month.

BERMAN: It's funny, it seems very different than what DH Secretary Markwayne Mullin told a conservative podcaster last month. He said that Congresswoman Omar was under investigation and, quote, "If we can prove that you shouldn't have been here in the first place, we'll deport you." That sounds, again, very different than what you were just saying.

KAYYEM: Yes. The law is pretty clear that -- this rule makes it clear that the administration -- that the government cannot punish the child of fraudulent behavior of a parent. They could -- the theory of the case, I assume, that the Trump administration would make is deny her citizenship and require her to defend her citizenship under this rule.

Once again, this is wholly new theory of the case, wholly new use of HSI. So even if they find some fraudulent behavior by a family member, I'm not sure -- I know the case law. I've never seen a case in which the public daughter, a congresswoman, is -- her house is raided because of -- and right now they're just accusations. They are -- we don't know any of the facts here.

And I want to say one thing about when this is -- this raid happened. Of course, we have these rules where DOJ shouldn't do this before because of the election. Votes are already ongoing. What this also does is it creates an atmosphere in all of Minnesota, let alone against the Democratic Party, that they have to answer for allegations they can't see.

So it's not just about her campaign. The reason why DOJ shouldn't do this is because it's almost about every campaign.

BERMAN: Juliette Kayyem, nice to talk to you tonight. Thank you very much.

Up next, why the Department of Justice is targeting this network and others, including Fox. Later, what the President said this afternoon about a so-called energy ceasefire between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Russian President Putin, with Ukraine saying it has already been violated.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:42:52]

BERMAN: All right, tonight, the Justice Department is investigating CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News for possible antitrust violations after the network's temporarily suspended TV pool coverage of the President last month. Now, you may remember that happened because the White House tried to ban CNN as well as MS NOW and Politico. And as a result, CNN was unable to fulfill its pool coverage duties.

The TV pool is the system for the network to share costs and responsibility covering the President's activities. Sources tell CNN the network's first learned about the investigation on Friday when attorneys for the network's received government demands for documents relating to the pool.

With us now, Former Federal Prosecutor in Cardozo School of Law Professor Jessica Roth and Former Federal Judge Nancy Gertner. Professor, let me just start with you. How do you see this investigation playing out?

JESSICA ROTH, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY: Well, this investigation appears to be meritless. And I think the only reasonable interpretation is that it's pretextual. The hallmark of an illegal activity under the antitrust laws is that it is undertaken predominantly for a commercial reason. And here, I don't think the Justice Department is going to be able to satisfy that element.

And moreover, it appears that the activity is protected by the First Amendment. These are press organizations, and it seems very clear, including by their filings in support of CNN and other organizations and the CNN lawsuit that's been filed against members of the White House staff, that their motivation for engaging in this collective activity is a political one, to push back against what they see as suppression of disfavored speech.

And so it is First Amendment-protected activity. It doesn't fall within the antitrust laws. And I'd be very, very surprised if a court would allow this case to go forward. And I'm disappointed that the Department of Justice lawyers are taking it even this far.

BERMAN: We'll come back to that point in just a second. First on the case law, Judge, for an antitrust case to work, it has to be for commercial reasons. What is the case law here? And what does that mean, commercial purposes versus, say, free speech purposes? NANCY GERTNER, FORMER FEDERAL JUDGE: Well, there was a case from the 1980s involving the NAACP that started a boycott of white businesses in order to enforce the civil rights laws. And they were sued by some of the white businesses.

[20:45:11]

And the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, held that what they were doing, that is to say, the NAACP was doing was protected activity to enforce the civil rights laws, not commercial activity, and that, therefore, the antitrust laws didn't apply. So there's abundant and clear case law that this is protected activity.

Let me say one other thing. If the pools -- if stopping the pool was antitrust violation, then so was the creation of the pool in the first instance, right? If you can't -- if you couldn't stop it, you also couldn't start it. And obviously, the pool coverage of this White House has been going on for decades.

So I agree with Professor Roth. This is really a baseless suit. It -- is it a vindictive suit? Because the stations were standing up to the government, and I would bet that there could be sanctions, that the stations could press for sanctions for having brought this lawsuit.

BERMAN: Professor, you mentioned that you're disappointed that the Department of Justice has brought this investigation, at least at this point. Bigger picture, what does it tell you?

ROTH: This is part of a pattern that we've seen over and over again under this administration where the Department of Justice, as well as other parts of the federal government, but I'm most focused on the Department of Justice being used to target the President's perceived enemies.

This is part of a particular pattern against news organizations who publish information and views that the President dislikes because it's not agreeing with him or it's not favorable toward him. But even part of a bigger picture than that, going after other people, other people in public life, Jay Powell, Jim Comey, Letitia James, last week Cassidy Hutchinson, people who have been vocal in saying things that are critical of the President and the department using both the civil and the criminal law enforcement apparatus of the Department of Justice to investigate these people and in some cases to seek criminal charges and bring criminal charges against them. It's deeply distressing.

BERMAN: Deeply distressing, you say.

Judge, as you know, we're expecting a judge to rule soon on really where this all started, a motion for a preliminary injunction in the press access case with the White House in which CNN is a part of, along with Politico and MS NOW. What do you expect the judge is weighing as he makes this decision about whether or not to say that CNN, MS NOW, and Politico should be allowed to be at the White House permanently? GERTNER: I don't have any doubt that the judge will say that they should be allowed to be at the White House permanently, that there was no basis for the ban. One of the things about this President is that he says the quiet part out loud. And he said the quiet part out loud, which was that he didn't like the coverage, that you're all being negative about him. He doesn't have a right to ban coverage based on that.

And then in addition, he said, well, you know, it's violating national security because you're making him look bad. That is not a national security issue. There's no hint that anyone got classified information. Making the government look bad is part of what journalists do. So I don't think that there's any basis for continuing this ban.

BERMAN: Judge Gertner, Professor Jessica Roth, great to see both of you. Thank you very much.

ROTH: Thank you.

BERMAN: Up next, reaction to the President's so-called energy ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine, a ceasefire that President Zelenskyy claims has already been violated.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:52:48]

BERMAN: Despite growing bipartisan backlash, President Trump is defending his deal to bring Russian diesel into American and international markets, writing on social media today that he, quote, "made the right choice for the American people." This comes as seven senators, including four Republicans on Capitol Hill, called on the administration to reverse course, saying Congress banned Russian energy imports four years ago.

Also over the weekend, the President announced that Russia and Ukraine had agreed to a, quote, "energy ceasefire," pausing attacks on oil and gas sites or electrical grids. But Ukrainian President Zelenskyy said they didn't know about that in advance and claims that Russia broke the so-called ceasefire with an attack on a power plant in Kharkiv.

This afternoon, President Trump had this to say about how Mr. Zelenskyy and Russian President Putin see the so-called ceasefire.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I think they both support it. I think they want to make a deal, but they don't know how. But we're going to get them to make a deal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: More now from CNN's Matthew Chance in Moscow.

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN CHIEF GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, John, it seems that both Ukraine and Russia were both surprised by President Trump's announcement of an energy ceasefire. All the Kremlin said so far is that contacts are ongoing with the spokesman shutting down any further questions by saying he had nothing to add. Hardly a ringing endorsement of a deal President Trump told us, of course, has been agreed by both sides.

If it does happen, though, and the Ukrainians say they're waiting to find out when the ceasefire would begin, it would mean a suspension of Russian attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure, which is being battered as winter approaches. But it would also mean an end to Ukrainian drone attacks on Russian oil refineries, which have crippled Moscow's production and forced shortages here in one of the world's biggest energy producers.

Now, there have been short-lived ceasefires like this in the past. Difference this time, though, is that President Trump has much more at stake, facing the midterms, of course, in three weeks, fuel prices spiking across the U.S. and needing to show voters that he is doing something to bring those prices down. That's why I think the U.S. is placing so much pressure at the moment on Ukraine, even threatening to pull military intelligence from Kyiv if it fails to comply.

[20:55:06]

Meanwhile, here in Moscow, the Kremlin may be tight-lipped, but it is upbeat. It's just done a controversial deal with Washington, which will see sanctions temporarily lifted on Russian diesel exports. That's lucrative for Moscow. President Trump has called for the Ukrainian leader, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, to be replaced, which is, of course, also exactly what the Kremlin wants.

And now the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, who turned 74 last week, is sitting back and watching the U.S. pressure Ukraine to end their highly effective oil refinery drone strike campaign. So that's quite a birthday gift.

Back to you, John.

BERMAN: Matthew Chance in Moscow, thank you very much.

I want to bring in the Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, William Taylor. Ambassador, it's great to see you. We heard Matthew Chance in Moscow say that the mood around the Kremlin is upbeat. I mean, who is the biggest winner from this deal from the U.S. to buy Russian diesel?

WILLIAM TAYLOR, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: Well, for that part of the deal, the Russian diesel part, the Russians are clearly the beneficiary. They get to break the sanctions. They get relief from the sanctions. They get some funds when they sell their oil.

The Ukrainians are not pleased about that because the sanctions regime is really one of the main things putting pressure on Putin to resolve this war, to come to the table, to negotiate. So I think on that part of the deal that I think the Russians come out ahead.

On the other hand, on this ceasefire, if it happens, it will only happen, of course, if it's bilateral, if the Russians stop shooting at Ukrainian energy. And the Ukrainians stop shooting at refineries, that's not a bad -- that's a good deal for both sides.

BERMAN: I want to play something the President said today. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Where do you see his willingness to make a deal when he's striking Ukraine (INAUDIBLE)?

TRUMP: I think they're going to make a deal. I think actually, Putin wants to make a deal more than Zelenskyy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: All right. He says Putin wants to make a deal more than Zelenskyy. Let's just start by asking how likely do you think that is?

TAYLOR: That's crazy. Putin wants to make a deal, but he wants the deal to be Ukrainian surrender. Yes. If Ukrainian surrender, that's a deal that Putin would love to have.

So what now Zelenskyy would want is a ceasefire, if he would like a total ceasefire, or he would be willing to start with an energy ceasefire so that the Russians don't go after his energy systems in advance of the winter. Zelenskyy does want that. No doubt about that.

BERMAN: So who do you think the biggest thorn is in this idea of an energy ceasefire? Do you think it's Zelenskyy because the President seems to be blaming him, or do you think it's more Vladimir Putin?

TAYLOR: Oh, John, this is so easy question. It's, of course, Putin. Putin has turned down every proposal for a ceasefire, whether it's energy, whether it's green, whether it's total, whether it's unconditional. He's turned everyone down. And Zelenskyy has already agreed to this ceasefire.

How could that be the problem? Zelenskyy has said, fine, we'll do it as long as it's mutual, it's bilateral. There's no question that Putin is the problem.

BERMAN: It's very finally, President Trump suggested Ukraine should have a new president and the U.S. is threatening to suspend intelligence sharing and weapons sales to Ukraine. Where do you think that leaves things?

TAYLOR: Well, those are two different things. This business about Ukraine needs a new president, I don't think it's all related to the suspension of intelligence. Suspension of intelligence is to put pressure on Zelenskyy to do something on the agreement.

And as I say, he's already agreed to the ceasefire. So there's no need to do that. But on the business about Trump talking about who should be the president of Ukraine, there's no foreigner anywhere, much less the president -- including the President of the United States, who has any say about who the president of Ukraine is. And by Trump saying that, he just increased the popularity, the support for Zelenskyy among Ukrainians and Ukrainian support for Zelenskyy to go up because of Trump's statement.

BERMAN: Ambassador Taylor, always an education. Thank you so much for being with us tonight.

Here at home, a federal judge says she is furious after at least 430 trees were cut down at a public golf course that President Trump wants to renovate in Washington. The Biden appointed judge says DOJ attorneys lost credibility after the trees were removed Saturday from the East Potomac golf course, with just over 12 hours notice heading into a holiday weekend.

The judge is hearing a legal challenge to the plan to overhaul the site and turn it into a professional course. The Interior Department says the work was not connected to the renovations. All tree cutting is banned at the course until at least Tuesday afternoon. Well, the judge weighs next steps.

That is all for us tonight. Thank you so much for watching. I'm John Berman. I'm going to see you tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. Eastern for CNN News Central, alongside Kate Bolduan and Sara Sidner.

Again, the news continues now. The Source with Kaitlan Collins takes off.